What We're Reading - August 1
Spread the word
|
|
Good afternoon, everyone! Today the new birth control benefit goes into effect, and women will now begin to have access to birth control with no co-pay. It’s an exciting day as this critical milestone in the Affordable Care Act becomes a reality. Here’s what we’re reading this morning…
On the day the new birth control benefit goes into effect, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius writes about the importance of affordable care. “Giving Women Control Over Their Health Care” – “Women deserve to have control over their health care. Aug. 1, 2012, ushers in a new day for women's health when, for the first time ever, women will have access to eight new services at no out-of-pocket cost to keep them healthier and to catch potentially serious conditions at an earlier, more treatable stage. This benefit will take effect for millions of adult and adolescent women over the course of the next year -- and it's just one of many benefits of the health care law that let women and their doctors, not insurance companies, make decisions about a woman's care. When it comes to health, women are often the primary decision-maker for their families and the trusted source in circles of friends. Women often take care of their families first and put off their own health care needs. Too often, they have gone without preventive services, worrying about what even a $20 insurance co-pay would mean to their families' budgets and choosing to pay for groceries or rent instead. But now, thanks to the health care law, many women won't have to make that choice.”
Disappointing news from courts in Arizona, Colorado, and South Dakota. “Three Rulings Against Women’s Rights” – “At a time when abortion rights and women’s access to affordable contraception are threatened by political attacks, judges in three newly decided federal cases failed to preserve constitutional protections for women. On Monday, Judge James Teilborg of the United States District Court in Phoenix upheld an Arizona law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer in April that bans all abortion procedures at 20 weeks from a woman’s last menstrual period, which is about 18 weeks after fertilization. It is the most aggressive of the previability abortion bans passed recently by a handful of states. It defies binding Supreme Court precedent that prevents states from banning abortions before a fetus can survive outside the womb, which generally occurs at about 24 weeks. To get around that pesky barrier, Judge Teilborg erroneously characterized Arizona’s outright ban as a permissible ‘regulation’ that limits only ‘some’ previability abortions. To make that argument, he relied, in part, on the fact that the ban contains a dangerously narrow exception for a ‘medical emergency.’ The judge also found the state had valid reason to enact the statute, embracing medically dubious claims about when a fetus can begin to feel pain. He was dismissive of realistic concerns that the law endangers women who develop life- or health-threatening medical problems late in pregnancy and that severe fetal abnormalities sometimes cannot be diagnosed before 20 weeks.”
The court ruled that a Colorado company could deny the birth control benefit to their employees. “Why Are Secular Businesses Claiming Religious Rights?” – “‘Can a corporation exercise religion?’ federal district court judge John L. Kane recently asked. He answered his own question with a provisional yes. In Newland v Sebelius, the court granted a commercial enterprise a temporary injunction exempting it, for now, from providing female employees with coverage for contraception and sterilization required by the Affordable Care Act. Hercules Industries, a private corporation, manufactures and distributes ventilation systems, but this secular business is owned and operated by a Catholic family, which ‘seek(s) to run Hercules in a manner that reflects their sincerely held religious beliefs.’ Its recently amended rules of incorporation state that the company is to be guided by appropriate religious, ethical, or moral standards and that the board of directors may ‘prioritize’ those standards over profitability. Following the teachings of the Catholic Church, Hercules does not offer the ACA's required coverage for reproductive health care. The law exempts religious employers from these requirements, and the Obama administration has offered compromises to Church-affiliated non-profits (compromises that have been the subject of intense controversy and litigation). But the Newland case seeking and at least temporarily securing exemptions from a generally applicable federal law for an entirely secular enterprise is a new frontier.”
